Reject Fadnavis’ affidavit over usage of ‘expired’ notary: Congress

The Rerunning Officer (RO) dismissed the objections after examining the submissions made by the CM's election officer, holding the affidavit as valid.

Setback to Fadnavis, SC orders trial for ‘not declaring’ criminal cases in election affidavit

The RO dismissed the objections raised by three individuals after examining the submissions made by Fadnavis’ election officer, holding the affidavit as valid. (Express photos By Pradip Das)

Congress on Saturday demanded cancellation of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’ nomination paper affidavit for the upcoming state assembly polls claiming the date of the notary seal on it had “expired” last December. However, the Rerunning Officer (RO) dismissed the objections raised by three individuals after examining the submissions made by the CM’s election officer, holding the affidavit as valid.

The first objection, raised by Congress nominee from Fadnavis’s Nagpur South-West constituency, Ashish Deshmukh pointed out that the notary before whom Fadnavis had made his affidavit had put a stamp that showed the validity of his licence had expired on December 28, 2018. Deshmukh had demanded CM’s affidavit be declared invalid on this ground.

Sandip Joshi, in his written submission to the RO, argued that the notary, V P Sontakke’s licence had got a five-year extension on December 29, 2018 and that the old stamp error “was inadvertently put and was hence inconsequential”. Joshi also presented the letter to the effect with his submission which further said: “It is not a defect of substantive character if it is proved that the notary was competent to have the affidavit sworn before him.”

Story continues below this ad

The RO, Shekhar Ghadge, ruled, “Sandip Joshi has submitted the copy of the licence of the notary that shows the five-year extension granted to him. Hence, the objection is rejected as no substance was found in the objection.”

The second complaint was by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidate from Nagpur South-West Amol Hadke in which he cited that Fadnavis had a reserved room at MLAs’ hostels in Mumbai and Nagpur, and simultaneously also occupied bungalows as CM in both the cities for which he had not furnished ‘no dues certificate’. On this, the RO ruled that the same had been submitted by Fadnavis “independently”. “Hence the objection is rejected,” Ghadge added.

The third objection was raised by lawyer Satish Ukey, who had filed a complaint against the RO on Friday which said the latter had restricted his access, barring entry to the notice board where the CM’s affidavit was displayed.

In his complaint, filed Saturday, he said that Fadnavis’ affidavit was “forged” since it was not prepared by the notary whose name was mentioned. “I had claimed that since the stamp of Sontakke showed expiry of licence on December 28, 2018. Hence he couldn’t have made the affidavit and it was hence a forged paper. My other objection was that no additional document can be taken on record after 3 pm on nomination filing day. Hence, the document furnished by Sandip Joshi about the notary’s extended licence period shouldn’t have been accepted by the RO,” Ukey told The Indian Express.

Story continues below this ad

Stating that it wasn’t within his jurisdiction to decide on issues raised by Ukey, the RO said the lawyer must approach an appropriate authority for redressal.

It was Ukey’s complaint regarding non-submission of two criminal cases pending on Fadnavis in his 2014 affidavit which had reached the Supreme Court after passing through three courts, including Bombay High Court. Earlier this week, the apex court set aside the High Court’s dismissal of Ukey’s plea directing that the issue raised by him be heard afresh in a lower count.